October 18, 2005

John Hannah?!?

We are pondering the Raw Story splash telling us that John Hannah, a mid-level aide to Dick Cheney, has become a cooperating witness in the Plame investigation:

A senior aide to Vice President Dick Cheney is cooperating with
special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in the outing of CIA agent
Valerie Plame Wilson, sources close to the investigation say.

Individuals familiar with Fitzgerald’s case tell RAW STORY
that John Hannah, a senior national security aide on loan to Vice
President Dick Cheney from the offices of then-Under Secretary of State
for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, John Bolton, was
named as a target of Fitzgerald’s probe. They say he was told in recent
weeks that he could face imminent indictment for his role in leaking
Plame-Wilson’s name to reporters unless he cooperated with the
investigation.

Others close to the probe say that if Hannah is cooperating with the
special prosecutor then he was likely going to be charged as a
co-conspirator and may have cut a deal.

...Those close to the investigation said in June 2003, Hannah was given
orders by higher-ups in Cheney’s office to leak Plame’s covert status
and identity in an attempt to muzzle Wilson, who had been a thorn in
the side of the administration since May 2003, when he started
questioning the administration’s claims that Iraq was an imminent
threat to the U.S. and its neighbors in the Middle East. The specifics
of who issued those orders and what directives were given were not
provided.

John Hannah (not this one; focus!) has slipped into this story a couple of times before:

Federal
law-enforcement officials said that they have developed hard evidence
of possible criminal misconduct by two employees of Vice President Dick
Cheney's office related to the unlawful exposure of a CIA officer's
identity last year. The investigation, which is continuing, could lead
to indictments, a Justice Department official said.

According to these
sources, John Hannah and Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter"
Libby, were the two Cheney employees. "We believe that Hannah was the
major player in this," one federal law-enforcement officer said. Calls
to the vice president's office were not returned, nor did Hannah and
Libby return calls.

Now, look at Mr. Hannah's background, and the Judy Miller saga seems a lot more understandable. Knight-Ridder has background, and Newsweek has this:

A memo written by a top Washington lobbyist for the controversial Iraqi
National Congress raises new questions about the role Vice President
Dick Cheney’s office played in the run-up to the war in Iraq.

The memo, obtained by NEWSWEEK, suggests that
the INC last year was directly feeding intelligence reports about Iraqi
weapons of mass destruction and purported ties to terrorism to one of
Cheney’s top foreign- policy aides. Cheney staffers later pushed INC
info—including defectors’ claims about WMD and terror ties—to bolster
the case that Saddam’s government posed a direct threat to America. But
the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies have strongly questioned
the reliability of defectors supplied by the INC.

For
months, Cheney’s office has denied that the veep bypassed U.S.
intelligence agencies to get intel reports from the INC. But a June
2002 memo written by INC lobbyist Entifadh Qunbar to a U.S. Senate
committee lists John Hannah, a senior national-security aide on
Cheney’s staff, as one of two “U.S. governmental recipients” for
reports generated by an intelligence program being run by the INC and
which was then being funded by the State Department. Under the program,
“defectors, reports and raw intelligence are cultivated and analyzed”;
the info was then reported to, among others, “appropriate governmental,
non-governmental and international agencies.” The memo not only
describes Cheney aide Hannah as a “principal point of contact” for the
program, it even provides his direct White House telephone number. The
only other U.S. official named as directly receiving the INC intel is
William Luti, a former military adviser to former House Speaker Newt
Gingrich who, after working on Cheney’s staff early in the Bush
administration, shifted to the Pentagon, where he oversaw a secretive
Iraq war-planning unit called the Office of Special Plans.

Hannah
did not respond to a request for comment. But another Cheney aide
insisted that the memo was misleading, and flatly denied that the vice
president received “raw” intelligence from the INC. Hannah discussed
only Iraqi political issues with INC representatives, not intelligence,
the aide said

My, my - John Hannah was a conduit for intel from Ahmed Chalabi and the INC. But so was Judy Miller! Might he be a source about whom Judy did not want to be questioned? (Okrent's thoughts on the Times reporting here; major Time piece not yet unearthed.)

One presumes that the possible connections between Hannah and Miller are endless. On the other hand, Fitzgerald was studying Hannah twenty months ago - it surely dawned on him that Hannah might have a tie to Ms. Miller.

And in his infamous column, Novak described two of his sources as "Two senior administration officials". Hannah would not seem to qualify. So, to whom did he leak?

We are giving Raw Story some credence because, as passed along by the WaPo, the Daily News reported that "" '[Fitzgerald has] a senior cooperating witness - someone who is giving
them all of that,' a source who has been questioned in the leak probe
told the Daily News yesterday."

A few questions - the UPI story fingering Hannah is from Feb 2004, when Fitzgerald had been on the case only a month, and just after the second round of subpoenas (and before the White House had fully complied with them).

This was also before the discovery of Rove's e-mail had dragged Matt Cooper into the story, and before the other reporters (Kessler, Pincus, Libby, Russert, and Miller) fought their subpoenas and, eventually, testified.

So - what might Fitzgerald have known at that point? And as another puzzle, Raw Story says that Hannah was ordered "to leak Plame’s covert status
and identity", even though the leaks from Libby and Rove seemed to be about "Wilson's wife" at the Agency.

Oh, why not - here is some wild speculation. Fitzgerald, or his predecessor, explained to Bob Novak that there is no reporter exemption in the Espionage Act, thereby prompting Mr. Novak to fold up like a cheap suitcase and identify his primary source as John Hannah, who received a battlefield promotion when Novak wrote his column.

And the hapless Mr. Hannah, unlike Libby and Rove, really did say "Valerie Plame, operative". We have no idea how Hannah might have known that, although there does seem to be a thread connecting Hannah, David Wurmser, John Bolton, Fred Fleitz, and Valerie Plame. Since Fred Fleitz also spent time at the CIA, he may have known of Ms. Plame there.

On another tack - TIME recently reported that "Fitzgerald, says a lawyer who's involved in the case, "knows who [Novak's original source] is--and it's not someone at the White House".

OK - is Hannah at the White House? Here is press release with his background:

John Hannah, a senior national security aide on loan to Vice President
Dick Cheney from the offices of then-Under Secretary of State for Arms
Control and International Security Affairs, John Bolton,

Does "at the White House on loan from the State Dept" equal "not at the White House"?

And can a "senior national security aide" be a "senior Administration official"? Why not?

The Rawstory article is co-authored by Jason Leopold, who I'm proud to say called me a right wing nazi in the comments section of Brad DeLong's blog where I was starring in a humiliation of Paul Krugman over Krugman running with one of Leopold's other fictions; that then Sec'y of the Army Tom White had engaged in multi-million dollar securities fraud while at Enron.

Leopold managed to get fired from Salon over it. I'm guessing he's up to his old tricks with this on Hannah.

I actually don't consider the leaking that bad. (I'm sure that the "outing" was accidental...people did not know Plame was NOC and it did not do real damage*). But if they leaked and then got called on it...they should have admitted it and took their lumps immediately. Cover up is unconsionable. I don't want liars in my white house. (And I'm a repug.)

*That said, I agree that even inadvertant releases of classified information are wrong and prosecutable.

I've read a lot of melodramatic and self-important crap about how terrible it is that Valerie Plame's identity was exposed and what it means for God, country, and the CIA. I'm not impressed. If that woman ---Mrs. Wilson--- was so concerned about her secret identity, then she should have dissuaded her husband from betraying the trust that her employers put in him when he went and told his story in the pages of the New York Times. But, as should be clear to all, the Wilsons had no interest in preserving her secret identity because that would have defeated their purpose: achieving martyrdom and celebrity.

Let these indictments come. It'll give us all a chance to revisit the many lies of Joe Wilson ---and, maybe in the bargain, expose Big Media's extreme interest in sabotaging our war efforts.

Ok...I don't know who that is...but ok...will figure it out. (and he was barely mentioned in the thread...had to look for the name pretty hard).

On other topic, I think TM is getting a bit pedantic to hold out for the use of "senior" as proving wrong a labeling of Hannah. Senior is in the eye of the beyolder. Besides, Novak already said that he misused the word "operative" and now you want to trust him for word precision?

What in hell is the BIG DEAL about getting intelligence analyzed that originated from the INC? I know in information gathering circles, data from defectors has to be especially scrutinized because of motive. But you can't simply IGNORE it either.

And it doesn't look like Hannah got the raw stuff anyway. The State Dept. analysis (INR?) should indicate degree of plausibility.

And this goes right to the battle between INR and WINPAC over Iraq intelligence. INR didn't want to believe it, WINPAC (most of them) did.

That WINPAC won the battle over INR is maddening to the Left and anti-war types...especially since the intelligence provided by Chalabi turned out to be mainly false and no WMD stockpiles were found.

Obviously Hannah et al erred on the side of caution.

And what's this bit in the Newsweek article about 'imminent threat'. That bs rears its ugly head again.

Iraq was not an imminent threat to America. That only comes in to play IF we attack Saddam and he attempts to retaliate. It has nothing to do with the threat we feared Iraq would become if we left him alone.

The Iraq war was never a question of 'yes' or 'no'. It was simply a matter of 'now' or 'later'. And 'later' was deemed to be too late.

I almost agree with you in hoping for at least one indictment. An affirmative defense would probably involve having Victoria's Secret Flame Wilson on the stand explaining why all the press hounds were at her hubby's soiree two days before the NYT elevated him to "worst liar ever to appear on the editorial page". I'd especially like to see her explain the length and depth of her relationship with Corn, Pincus et al. It would be, at minimum, entertaining and possibly very enlightening.

"Let these indictments come. It'll give us all a chance to revisit the many lies of Joe Wilson ---and, maybe in the bargain, expose Big Media's extreme interest in sabotaging our war efforts.

Excellent, Toby! You're an invaluable member of the "I Know Wilson's Gonna Be Indicted, I Just KNOW It" Club.

I think you and Seven Machos should get together and concoct the Super Secret Super Truth, about how Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame are the real reasons Iraq went FUBAR. Extra points if you can blame them for 9/11, too!

"Mr. Bennett called Mr. Tate on Aug. 31. Mr. Tate told Mr. Bennett that Mr. Libby had given permission to Ms. Miller to testify a year earlier. "I called Tate and this guy could not have been clearer - 'Bob, my client has given a waiver,' " Mr. Bennett said."

.. "For some reason none of us had a tape recorder, so on the flight back to Casablanca we compared our notes from the one interview we’d had with a Moroccan general a few hours before. We wanted to be sure the phrases we’d scribbled down were accurate. But there was a problem. Judy had many more quotes in her notebook than I and another reporter had in ours. And Judy’s were much better. Then I realized why. I’d done a lot more homework on that particular story than she did, and I was asking much more detailed questions. She’d written them down, and now she thought they came from the general, but many of the quotes actually were from … me." ...

"Given the way Judy takes notes, I’m not surprised that she can’t remember who first gave her the name of “Flame.” I’ve even seen speculation that it came from one of her other not-so-reliable sources, Iraqi exile leader (and now vice president) Ahmad Chalabi, who peddled so many of the WMD rumors that wound up as facts in the Times. Ahmad keeps close tabs on his enemies, and I know first-hand that he counted many people at the C.I.A. on that list. When I e-mailed one of Chalabi’s aides to ask point blank if Chalabi was Judy’s source for Plame’s name, the aide responded: “Come on Chris … get back to serious work.” That seemed like a non-denial denial, so I asked again. “I'm not going to dignify it any further,” was the reply. “It is utter rubbish and you really should know better than to even listen to such rehashed '...' claptrap.”

So, I don’t know if Ahmad was the source. But I do know this. His agenda was to get Saddam ousted at any price..."

Wasn't Krugman at Enron?!? When I was at McKinsey, the place was thick with Democrat types who touted Enron all the time. It was all part of their New Economy shill. And Gupta was thick with the Clintons...

If Iraq was an imminent threat, then why did we take 14 months to argue the war before going in? I agree that Bush admin was wrong in Iraq having missiles on the rails. But the main issue was "now or later".

I gave Bush2 the bene of the doubt on the WMDs since I had disbeleived Bush1 about them with the previous war and then we found out it was worse than we thought. And never forget that the pacifist Senate demos voted against GW1 in droves (44 of them) even though Iraq had entered Kuwait and 5 miles into Saudi Arabia.

I have no idea about the validity of this. However, Hannah definitely and without any question falls into the "senior administration official" category. He is also "no partisan gunslinger." Of course, so is Chalabi.

My hunch is that this is important news, but that the left is making way too much hay with it and trying too hard (as usual) to make it into some kind of death blow against the administration (proabably because BUSH LIED!!!!). I note that Hannah, A TARGET, has not spent the equivalent of a day with the grand jury. That's how it's done, kids. Make a note of it. Especially you, Geek, because it may come up on one of your law-school exams.

"Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's CIA-leak inquiry is focusing attention on what long has been a tactic of U.S. President George W. Bush's administration: slash-and-burn assaults on its critics, particularly those opposed to the president's Iraq war policies."

NYT's story- of course seen as bad news for Bush, but considering he has no obligation and the secrecy with GJ

No Final Report Seen in Inquiry on C.I.A. Leak

By DAVID JOHNSTON and RICHARD W. STEVENSON
WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 - The special counsel in the C.I.A. leak case has told associates he has no plans to issue a final report about the results of the investigation, heightening the expectation that he intends to bring indictments, lawyers in the case and law enforcement officials say.

The prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, is not expected to take any action in the case this week, government officials said. A spokesman for Mr. Fitzgerald, Randall Samborn, declined to comment.

A final report had long been considered an option for Mr. Fitzgerald if he decided not to accuse anyone of wrongdoing, although Justice Department officials have been dubious about his legal authority to issue such a report.

By signaling that he had no plans to issue the grand jury's findings in such detail, Mr. Fitzgerald appeared to narrow his options either to indictments or closing his investigation with no public disclosure of his findings, a choice that would set off a political firestorm.

With the term of the grand jury expiring Oct. 28, lawyers in the case said they assumed Mr. Fitzgerald was in the final stages of his inquiry.

The focus of Mr. Fitzgerald's inquiry has remained fixed on two senior White House aides, Karl Rove, who is President Bush's senior adviser and deputy chief of staff, and I. Lewis Libby Jr., who is Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. Both had conversations with reporters about a C.I.A. officer whose name was later publicly disclosed.

It is not clear whether Mr. Fitzgerald has learned who first identified the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, to the syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak in July 2003.

Some of the lawyers in the case say Mr. Fitzgerald seems to be wrestling with decisions about how to proceed, leaning toward indictments but continuing to weigh thousands of pages of documents and testimony he has compiled during the nearly two-year inquiry.

In recent days, Mr. Fitzgerald has repeatedly told lawyers in the case that he has not made up his mind about criminal charges.

Bush said "we cannot wait until Saddam BECOMES an imminent threat" but some doofus reporter over at the NY Times bastardized the quote to invoke a completely different message that Saddam was an imminent threat.

Does anybody have information if the CIA has ever stated if Plame was indeed "covert" at the time she was mentioned in the Novak article? I believe Novak wrote that he contacted the CIA and said that he was going to use Plame's name in an article and the CIA had no problem with him using her name. If that is the case, what is all this "disclosing an covert operative, deep cover, super spy" bullshit all about. If she was driving to work everyday to Langley, going to parties with Joe "I'll have another sweet mint tea, please" Wilson and posing for Vanity Fair, how undercover or covert could she be. If she was just a desk jockey at CIA, this whole investigation is nothing but a JOKE!

Did Rove and Libby tell the press spokesmodel that they had "nothing to do" with the Plame outing? If so, and they did, then they need to get fired just for that. I will listen to an argument that they weren't really involved or that there was some miscommunication. But if there was deliberate dishonesty (or Clintonian deception) with the spokesguy, I want those guys gone.

As to President Bush saying Iraq was an 'Imminent' threat, it is revisionist spin!

In President Bush's State of the Union Address in January 03,

'Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.'

The inhabitants of some quarters on the Left are almost beside themselves with excitement tonight as they contemplate the possibility of indictments against Karl Rove, Lewis Libby, and perhaps others in the Plamegate investigation. In fact, they've been in a state of high agitation for weeks now.

Sorry for the italics, new to this stuff. Still, no one from the CIA has answerd the question of when Novak called the CIA and stated that he was going to use Plame's name in an article and the CIA did not have a problem with it. If she was covert or undercover don't you think that the CIA would tell Novak that by publishing her name he would be committing a crime. My thinking is that she was not undercover or covert at the times in question and this is nothing more than a turf battle between the CIA and the Bush Adminstration. And yes, I am WAY behind on the story, I 'd rather be on the golf course.

1.A final report had long been considered an option for Mr. Fitzgerald if he decided not to accuse anyone of wrongdoing, although Justice Department officials have been dubious about his legal authority to issue such a report.

2.Mr. Fitzgerald appeared to narrow his options either to indictments or closing his investigation with no public disclosure of his findings, a choice that would set off a political firestorm.

It isn't appropriate to issue a report, in that the evidence is secret and it could be dubious to witnesses and "players" that do not appear favorable. There is a better legal way to say this, Lawyer? It isn't considered fair to put out bad parts about people who may not had a chance at a full airing? IE Wilson

Lee -- For the record, the crime originally thought to be at issue cannot be committed by (most) journalists. Novak could not have committed it. The perp has to be someone with a security clearance who knowingly outs someone currently or recently undercover.

That's a ballpark correct answer to your question, anyway.

I have long argued that Plame was not covert when anyone "outed" her. I am in a minority. We shall soon see if I have been right or wrong.

'Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.'

Reading comprehension and honstly quoting President Bush on the left is seriously lacking.

Honstly : While I attempt to comprehend the melodrama of paranoia hiding behind a bravado of omniscience that sold this war, words fail me. At such times, I remember the wit and the wisdom, perhaps now paraphrased: We don't want the next smoking gun to come in the form of a nuclear cloud.

And BTW, if after 22 months, there are no indictments and he issues no report and the media has it's expected spaz, shouldn't they talk to Miller and Cooper and all the Friends of the Court Briefers for stretching this stupid thing out

According to what we've read, Harlow (the CIA press spokesman) confirmed information Novak told him he was going to print. Then Harlow went to check Valery's status, discovered she was NOC (covert) and called Novak back and told him not to print her name.

Procedures dictate Harlow check Valery's status FIRST before confirming her employement (via Novak's info). Harlow did not. He goofed. Novak got his confirmation, he was not responsbile for Harlow's goof and knew it, Novak went to print.

It does seem that Valery has a covert status. That people can see her go to work at the CIA is neither here nor there.

Thanks for the info. If Plame was indeed covert at the time, why has the CIA not produced documentation that she was or wasn't covert. That little bit of information would help the public know if this investigation is really about revealing a covert agent's name, which is something someone should be taken to the woodshed about, or if this is some other political/turf battle that Fitzgerald is in the middle of?

Excellent, Toby! You're an invaluable member of the "I Know Wilson's Gonna Be Indicted, I Just KNOW It" Club.

All I've ever said is that Wilson is just as "guilty" of outing his wife as any of these other schlubs. If Fitzgerald doesn't get around to indicting him, fine. It gets done, anyway, in the court of informed opinion.

"Fitzgerald cannot write a report. It is forbidden by law as the information he has accumulated is grand jury material prohibited by law from disclosure. There is no longer an Independent Counsel statute, which permitted this type of report. I have never heard of a federal judge ordering a prosecutor to write a report of a grand jury investigation and then make it public. A court does not have the authority to do so."

"But Libby also testified that he never named Plame nor told Miller that she worked for the CIA, because either he did not know that at the time, or, if he had heard that Plame was a CIA employee, he did not know whether it was true."

I agree that that does not look good for Libby. I actually see the Tate/Abrahms stuff as more serious. Miller and Libby could have different recollections of the conversation-granted. But on the Tate/Abrams stuff, those guys are lawyers. One of them is lying about Libby trying to dissuade Miller from testifying. And logic says that it is more likely Libby's lawyer that would be the liar (would a Miller lawyer risk such a falsehood?) If Libby really did try to keep Miller quiet (and that is the Occam's Razer explanation for her being in jail) that means he likely either did something wrong in the conversation or perjured himself in describing it.

"But Libby also testified that he never named Plame nor told Miller that she worked for the CIA, because either he did not know that at the time, or, if he had heard that Plame was a CIA employee, he did not know whether it was true."

Did Libby talk to Waas about this?

this is a semi- wrinkle in the Waas's story

"Mr. Bennett called Mr. Tate on Aug. 31. Mr. Tate told Mr. Bennett that Mr. Libby had given permission to Ms. Miller to testify a year earlier. "I called Tate and this guy could not have been clearer - 'Bob, my client has given a waiver,' " Mr. Bennett said."

Re Harlow:(1)The appropriate response is to neither confirm nor deny;(2)When the CIA thinks a paper is going to print something which is secret, it's normal procedure is to call the publisher and get them to shitcan the story.

Nothing in this was handled normally.

Geek, from Miller's report, Libby never did mention Plame's name. Of course, she's nuts and I don't know that the prosecutor should consider anything she said .How do you explain sitting in jail for 85 days to protect sources whose names she can't recall? N.U.T.S.

CaseyL, anything that can attest to the fact that she was covert at the time of her so called outing. That should not be a problem now that everyone in the world knows who she is and where she worked. Hell, she posed for Vanity Fair with her hubby, how concerned was she with her covert status or the contacts she delt with while overseas or in the states using that covert status, if she is willing to pose for the cover of a major magazine (face exposed) while her husban was at war with the White House.

"If Iraq was an imminent threat, then why did we take 14 months to argue the war before going in"

Because Blair managed to convince Bush that it was a good idea to try to get some legal, moral and political cover via UN inspectors. Of course this attempt at "wrongfooting" Saddam backfired when he called Bush's bluff, and actually cooperated with the inspectors.

"Wasn't it Blair who said the 45 minute thing?"

Blair said it first, and then Bush happily picked up the meme. Syn, pay attention.

Ordi said "honstly quoting President Bush on the left is seriously lacking"

I realize you think it doesn't count because he used his "I don't really think it's true, I'm only saying it because Blair is saying it" disclaimer. Just like he did in the SOTU. Sorry, I'm not impressed.

Syl said "'Imminent' threat only comes to bear IF we attack Saddam and he retaliates."

Nice job trying to rewrite history. Bush didn't say "Saddam might attack us at the drop of a hat, but only if we attack him first." Syl said that, not Bush. Bush said (paraphrase) "Saddam might attack us at the drop of a hat."

"Iraq as imminent threat was never used as a justification for removing Saddam."

It was never used as a justification, except when it was. And Bush's "45 minutes" bogeyman was indeed precisely an example of "Iraq as imminent threat [being] used as a justification for removing Saddam."

Look it up. I'd give you the cite, but I don't want to antagonize Kim, who claims I link too much. Oh good, someone else posted the cite. Let Kim kick them around.

"Libby could have been passing along a rumor he didn't know was true or not"

Nice try.

Let's say you happen to know that the password for our nuclear arsenal is Rosebud. Let's say you walk around Time Square with a big picket sign that says "I'm just passing along a rumor, I don't know if it's true or not, but the password for our nuclear arsenal might be Rosebud."

I'll send you a postcard in jail.

Tollhouse said "Pick any person from the Bush admin, and someone will manage to point the finger that way"

I think you're being inadvertently candid when you list Miller as "a person from the Bush admin."

Clarice said "Libby never did mention Plame's name."

Please, this silly point should have been retired long ago. There is no legal, moral or practical difference between the words "Wilson's wife" and "Valerie Plame."

Geek: Here's a little "lawyer tip" for you: the "laugh test" is not recognized law and doesn't help to establish or dis-establish fact, a concept which you seem very enamored by but don't really grasp.

Hannah may well be why Fitz had Miller dead to rights. Note however that he has claimed ignorance of the covert status. With any luck, Hannah has led Fitz to the skunk, Joe.
===============================================

Here's where my thinking is at this point in time. Others have already come to this conclusion but I had to see it for myself.

------------

Wilson tricked the administration into 'outing' his wife.

It didn't much matter to Wilson and Valery that she continue working for the agency anymore for whatever reasons. We could take our pick (and have some fun) with what those reasons might be.

He knew there would be some sort of response to his op-ed in which he lied about the forged documents as well as implying that Cheney had sent him then ignored his report.

He knew if the administration dug around at all, they'd find his wife's connection to his trip.

Fine. The bait.

He knew his wife was covert. He also knew it was a very closely guarded secret. He was well aware of the fact of previous incidents and people would think she was already 'outed' and therefore be less shy about talking about her.

To be sure Valery would be outed Wilson spread around, while shopping out his phony Niger debunking story, that Valery was WINPAC. Since WINPAC is not covert, reporters and anyone to whom they related that info, wouldn't think twice that 'outing' Valery was anything to worry about.

The Bait looks very tasty.

Novak called him to tell him what he was going to print. Wilson had no comment but called the CIA to give them a heads up.

Harlow didn't make a mistake. He was instructed to verify. Checking Valery's status later was just to cover himself.

Novak goes to print.

The Hook is in the water. The bait is being nibbled.

Wilson then, through Corn, screams that his wife has been outed and gives details to indicate its importance. Brewster-Jennings. Valery Plame. Both of which are red herrings. Brewster-Jennings had long been exposed along with Valerie Plame.

Her current work had nothing to do with the above and had not for a long long time.

The Corn article was meant to frighten the administration into thinking they had really really goofed and thus attempt to engage in conspiracy to cover-up.

The jaws closed around the hook.

---------
I came to this conclusion when it occurred to me that the 3 sneakies were not Plame, Wilson, and Johnson but 3 sneakies sympathetic to the administration.

I have a sort of off-topic question that I dont want to spoil the TM's new thread with. When did Joe Wilson ever claim that anyone other than the CIA sent him on the Niger mission? I've seen the tricky edit job Freepers have done on his Lateline appearance with Wolf Blitzer, but was there ever a time when he actually said that he was asked by someone other than the CIA? Just curious.

Except Rove's 'bait' and Wilson's 'bait' may be referring to different things.

Lotsa bait in D.C. ;)

Rove, at that point wasn't getting into a defense of the intelligence Novak refuted. They were still getting their ducks in a row concerning that. Remember Condi seeming confused the following week on MTP or something?

Rove was warning Cooper off Wilson from the other direction, saying his wife had something to do with his trip.

(And, remember, Novak's article hadn't come out yet.)

To me, the line that somebody had to be pushed across was CIA confirmation. If Harlow had so 'no comment' from the git go, Novak couldn't have printed what he did.

A non-conspiratorial person would simply say Harlow goofed. But a conspiratorialist (which I think I'm becoming..har har) would find that confirmation extremely convenient.

Especially since Wilson says he gave the CIA a heads-up that Novak would be calling.

If Harlow had so 'no comment' from the git go, Novak couldn't have printed what he did.

It seems to me this is closing the barn door after the horses leave. Once a reporter calls CIA asking about a NOC, the cover is blown. (Since obviously more than one person already knows about it, and they're already talking.) CIA can't continue to use that agent, even if their names never show up in print. At best, the PR officer can delay the story until they have a chance to do a quick cleanup on her public cover.

I agree the policy ought to be "no comment," and that Harlow goofed, but don't see how that had much of an effect on the bigger picture.

The fact that I didn't regurgitate every single word in your original message doesn't mean that I didn't quote you correctly. If you can't understand that, too bad.

"Kim, asks you to link but you are suddenly shy!"

I've been called lots of things but that's not usually one of them. I have to give you credit for being original.

As far as posting the link, you posted the relevant link yourself, here, shortly after I first raised the subject of the 45 minutes, here. So I don't know what your problem is.

"You make inferences of what POTUS stated"

No inference is required. He said what he said (here): "The danger to our country is grave. The danger to our country is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqi regime is building the facilities necessary to make more biological and chemical weapons. And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given."

Sounds pretty fucking "imminent" to me. As you recall, this started with Syl saying "Iraq was not an imminent threat to America."

Syl's statement is correct, but it's also incongruent with the message Bush was sending.